Translate

Thursday, June 30, 2016

A currency war, also known as competitive devaluations, is commonly definedas
a condition in international affairs where countries seek to gain a
trade advantage over other countries by causing the exchange rate of
their currency to fall in relation to other currencies.

As the exchange rate of a country's currency falls exports become more
competitive in other countries, and imports into the country become
more expensive causing that nation's citizens to buy products made inside their own country..

Both effects benefit the domestic industry, and thus
employment, which receives a boost in demand from both domestic and
foreign markets.

A currency war refers to a situation where a number of nations seek to
deliberately depreciate the value of their domestic currencies in order
to stimulate their economies.

Although currency depreciation or
devaluation is a common occurrence in the foreign exchange market, the
hallmark of a currency war is the significant number of nations that may
be simultaneously engaged in attempts to devalue their currency at the
same time.

When ALL countries adopt a similar strategy, it can lead to a general decline in international trade, harming all countries.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but a strong currency is not necessarily
in a nation's best interests.

A weak domestic currency makes a nation's
exports more competitive in global markets, and simultaneously makes
imports more expensive. Higher export volumes spur economic growth,
while pricey imports also have a similar effect because consumers opt
for local alternatives to imported products.

11 Apr 2016

Famed economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University warned in an inter view on Bloomberg TV :

"Currency tensions are mounting and the situation could explode into a
full-blown currency war, between Japan and the eurozone on one side of
the United States."
And he explained that the U.S. central bank's tactics are behind it all.

"The Fed has gone very dovish. They are going to hike on the investor
twice this year. Even some Fed governors were talking down the dollar,
and that is creating, both in the euro and in Japan, some frustration,"
he said.

"There is a sense in Japan and in the eurozone right now that the U.S. is
cheating, pushing down the volume of the dollar in a situation where
growth is improving in the U.S., inflation is going higher in the U.S, while in Europe and Japan, inflation has gone lower and growth is faltering."

He doubts there is anything that global leaders can do to stop the currency war.

"I think that intrinsically, even central bankers in Europe, they were
concerned about fiscal policy and the need for austerity. They are
saying we are running out of bullets. We are reaching the limits of what
monetary policy can do," Roubini said.

1~ China and investor fears about a hard landing in
Beijing and its likely impact on the stock market. “While China is more
likely to have a bumpy landing than a hard one, investors’ concerns have
yet to be laid to rest, owing to the ongoing growth slowdown and
continued capital flight,”

2~ Emerging markets are in serious trouble. “They face
global headwinds (China’s slowdown, the end of the commodity super
cycle, the Fed’s exit from zero policy rates). Most have not implemented
structural reforms to boost sagging potential growth. And currency
weakness increases the real value of trillions of dollars of debt built
up in the last decade

3~ The Fed probably erred in exiting its
zero-interest-rate policy in December. “Weaker growth, lower inflation
(owing to a further decline in oil prices), and tighter financial
conditions (via a stronger dollar, a corrected stock market, and wider
credit spreads) now threaten US growth and inflation expectations.”

4~ Geopolitical risks are coming to a boil. “Perhaps the
most immediate source of uncertainty is the prospect of a long-term cold
war – punctuated by proxy conflicts – between the Middle East’s
regional powers, particularly Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran.”

5~ Oil’s price plunge. “This may now signal weak global
demand – rather than rising supply – as growth in China, emerging
markets, and the U.S. slows.”

6~ Global banks “are challenged by lower returns, owing to
the new regulations put in place since 2008, the rise of financial
technology that threatens to disrupt their already-challenged business
models, the growing use of negative policy rates, rising credit losses
on bad assets (energy, commodities, emerging markets, fragile European
corporate borrowers), and the movement in Europe to “bail in” banks’
creditors, rather than bail them out with now-restricted state aid.”

7~ The European Union and the eurozone “could be ground zero of global financial turmoil this year.”

Economic growth in most regions has been below historical norms
in recent years; many experts attribute this sub-par growth to the
fallout of the Great Recession.

Most nations have exhausted all options to stimulate growth, given
that interest rates in numerous countries are already either near zero
or at historic lows. With no further rate cuts possible and fiscal
stimulus not an option (as fiscal deficits have come under intense
scrutiny in recent years), currency depreciation is the only tool
remaining to boost economic growth.

Sovereign bond yields for short-term to medium-term maturities have
turned negative for a number of nations.In this extremely low-yield
environment, US Treasuries – which yielded 1.86% for 10-year maturities
and 2.52% for 30 years as of April 17, 2015 – are attracting a great
deal of interest, leading to more dollar demand.[ NOTE: The above was written April 20, 2015. Things have changed much since then!]

So what are the negative effects of a currency war?

Currency devaluation may lower productivity in the long-term,
since imports of capital equipment and machinery become too expensive
for local businesses. If currency depreciation is not accompanied by
genuine structural reforms, productivity will eventually suffer.

The degree of currency depreciation may be greater than what is
desired, which may eventually cause rising inflation and capital
outflows.

A currency war may lead to greater protectionism and the erecting of trade barriers, which would impede global trade.

Competitive devaluation may cause an increase in currency
volatility, which in turn would lead to higher hedging costs for
companies and possibly deter foreign investment.

"The Fed digs deeply into the U.S. economy, discussing very granular and
specific elements of the economic puzzle, but when discussing
international events, it seems disjointed and high-level. And that
wouldn't be so bad, except their entire premise for not raising rates is
BASED on the international worries!" Seeking Alpha's Edward Hoofnagle, CFA wrote on April 8, 2016.

"Reading between the lines, the Fed seems to be desperately fighting the
USD advance over the past 12 months, highlighting repeatedly that the
strong USD and weak oil is causing deflation, while worrying that
further rate advances will only exacerbate the dollar increase and its
deflationary push," he wrote.

This is not the time for leverage, keep some powder, and keep an eye on indicators like JNK, and VXX.
If JNK falls below 33, we're back to fear mode in the fixed income
markets. And if VXX spikes above 22, we're back into the topsy turvy. "The currency war is dead! Long live the
currency war!"

The ‘truce’ in global currency wars is on borrowed time.

"Twelve
weeks ago, at a G20 summit in Shanghai, the world’s big central banks
worried about a highly volatile market and how to make monetary policy
work.

They focused on currency manipulation as one of the causes of global economic instability and urged all countries to refrain from it. Alan Ruskin, FX strategist at Deutsche Bank, prefers to describe it
as “an understanding”, and the understanding was that dollar strength
was “starting to become problematic for global risk”.

Truce or not, the combination of these actions has
resulted in a weaker dollar, a barely discernible shift in the
dollar-renminbi rate, buoyant emerging market currencies, an oil price
nudging $50 a barrel and a relatively becalmed market. All pretty
painless, except for the eurozone and Japan, whose currencies have strengthened more than suits their economies.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the US government, wanting
to keep things stable, has been upping the currency manipulation
rhetoric.

The Treasury Department’s publication last month of a new currency watchlist,
which includes China, Germany, Japan and South Korea, shows “they
appear to be even more focused on that point [preventing currency
manipulation]”, says Stephen Jefferies, head of emerging markets and
Europe, Middle East and Africa foreign exchange at JPMorgan.

The signs are that Treasury secretary Jack Lew will use the G7 at
Sendai to reinforce the importance of exchange-rate stability, so Sendai
will maintain the currencies equilibrium — but for how much longer?

The
broader picture is more gloomy because currency stability is masking
failures in monetary policy. Each central bank is struggling with its
own demons, says Steven Englander, head of G10 FX strategy at Citigroup. — the Fed fears hiking rates, the ECB
fears taking monetary easing further, the BoJ fears further disaster if it extends its negative interest rates policy and the PBoC fears the debt growth that accompanies each easing strategy.

“The question is which central bank needs the move the most, and
which can find a way of mitigating the downside of a rates change,” says
Mr Englander.

Market commentators are asking not how long a currency truce lasts,
but what comes after it.

At
some point, the US, Japan or China is going to decide that domestic
policy needs to trump FX stability, “and once one moves, the genie is
out of the bottle”. [END QUOTE FROM FT]

[WEBSITE NOTE, STRATFOR: The analysis contained herein reflects the views of ETM and not of
Stratfor. In fact, as you will see, it is different from our existing
worldview in some significant ways. We are sharing this with our readers
because it is good work, produced using rigorous analytic tools and
methodology.This is the fourth installment of a five-part series authored by ETM
Analytics, an economic and financial advisory firm with offices in the
United States and South Africa.]

"The notion of a global reserve currency has come to mean very different things since the Bretton Woods system
started in the 1940s — and particularly after it ended in the 1970s.
Under the classical gold standard, which was in place from 1815 to 1914,
gold served as the principal asset underpinning the reserve currency:
the British pound sterling. As the world's chief superpower and creditor
nation, Britain was the system's custodian, backing the pound with gold
at a rate of 4.25 pounds per ounce. Other countries' banks held both
gold and pounds in reserve as well. Because customers could exchange
currency for gold at any time, bank runs were still a threat, keeping in
check any undue credit and bank note expansion or abuse of financial
power.

For Britain, controlling the world's reserve currency was more a
matter of responsibility than of privilege.But throughout the early 20th century, three developments
fundamentally changed the system altogether. First, European powers and
the budding United States began to threaten Britain's hegemony, setting
in motion a decadeslong redistribution of power that would be settled
only after the conclusion of World War II. Second, Washington and Wall
Street established the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Two decades later,
President Franklin Roosevelt passed the Emergency Banking Act of 1933,
confiscating gold and weakening its ties to the United States' monetary
and payments system.

Then, the New Gold-Exchange Standard, one of the
key byproducts of the Bretton Woods agreement, eliminated citizens'
ability to redeem national currencies in gold, reserving that privilege
for governments and their central banks.

And so, gold was systematically and deliberately shifted from private
hands to the control of states. It could no longer act as a
market-based check on the expansionary policies of governments and
banks.

The system of fully nationalized fiat currencies that emerged in
its place in the early 1970s gave states — especially the United States —
the ability to expand their power to its fullest, using a
near-unlimited number of financing tools unconstrained by the gold
standard. Controlling the global reserve currency then became more a
matter of privilege than of responsibility.

The Battle for Currency Supremacy

Now, the United States' infallibility and the pillars that once
supported the dollar's pre-eminence have been shaken.

The harder
Washington fights to hold onto its exorbitant monetary privilege, the
more it leverages its position by expanding its debt-based growth model
and its preference for fiscal and monetary palliatives over painful but
necessary structural reforms. Meanwhile, lesser global powers are
becoming less willing to allow Washington its privilege if it cannot or
will not pay for it through hegemonic dominance, stable state finances
and monetary dependability.

Still, challenges to the dollar's supremacy have not been
particularly successful.

Europe tried to wrestle the United States'
exorbitant privilege away, but the apparent failure of the European
project has called into question the euro's ability to unseat the
dollar.

But China is going to get old before it gets rich, and
its politics continue to focus inward while its finances remain fragile.
To cultivate international trust in the yuan, Beijing would have to
open its trade and capital accounts, allocate resources more efficiently
and rid itself of debt — reforms that may create more political
instability than the government would prefer.

Two Brutal Fronts

The shift in currency reserve status from custodial responsibility to
exorbitant privilege has imbued the global monetary system with a
self-destructive impetus that potentially inheres toward instability.

This instability is caused by the world's major powers pursuing two
incompatible goals: currency debasement (lowering the value of money)
and fostering currency confidence.

As the biggest reserve currency
power, the United States means to instill confidence in the dollar so
that it can maintain its privilege. But to reap the benefits of its
privilege, the United States tends to adopt inflationary policies that
erode confidence over time.

Other major powers, feeling the need to show that they can play minor
reserve currency roles or potentially usurp the dollar, have tried to
wrest back some privilege of their own through monetary inflation.

After
all, the essence of monetary privilege is the ability to print money
without having it sold into oblivion by the rest of the world.

The
United States' privilege was on full display from 2008 to 2014 as it
printed trillions of dollars without devaluing its currency. (Zimbabwe and Venezuela, by comparison, have tried to tap their privilege with far less success.)The tension between the United States and other powershas set the
scene for currency trench warfare on two brutal fronts.

On the first,
states are mounting inflationary insurrections to gather as many
resources as they can before foreigners discount their currencies. Money
printing, bank credit expansion and deficit spending are the weapons
used in these raids, which are simply manifestations of the tragedy of
the monetary commons that has arisen from the fluctuating fiat currency
system.

On the second front, states vie for reserve currency stature, a
battle that can be fought in one of two ways.(1) A state can tighten its
monetary policies, reduce national debt and raise productivity, an
option that requires painful internal adjustment and surrender on the
first front.

(2) The alternative is to create economic, financial and
military dependency on itself — or leverage dependency where it already
exists — to encourage other countries to adopt its currency.

Trade
policies, the military-industrial complex and global financing
institutions are the weapons of choice on this front.States that can fortify an advantageous position in the reserve
currency battle can gain cover for inflationary raids, but that does not
mean they are clear of danger; if they expend too many resources on
raids, their reserve currency positions will be put in jeopardy.

But
striking the right balance is easier said than done, and all too often
clashes break out, breeding tremendous financial and economic volatility
that leaves many casualties in its wake.[T]he geopolitical order abhors the exorbitant privilege afforded by the
reserve currency and that superpowers tend to wield their full
influence to maintain that privilege — even at the risk of exacerbating
international imbalances.

The system then becomes bogged down
by inflationary insurrections and conflict as other states try to secure
resources and project power to encourage greater foreign reliance on
them. Eventually, the monetary order must undergo radical shifts to
adjust to the tension. These shifts cause financial instability
worldwide, undermining the integrity of national currencies and even the
state-centric currency model itself.

The real war being waged, then, is between the political forces of
centralized money and the market forces of decentralized finance. This
war has been waged for centuries, if not millennia, and it has always
pitted the sovereign's imperative for money nationalization against the
market's imperative for monetary innovation.

Currency centralization
serves the state's purposes, enabling it to extract profits through
seigniorage (the face value of money minus the cost of physically
creating it), finance wars, regulate the banking system, control
transactions and levy taxes.

Decentralization does the opposite,
protecting citizens from state resource predation through inflation,
diminishing the state's control of transactions and curtailing the
state's overall financial power. In this way, the relationship between
the state and its people is profoundly affected by the orientation of
the global monetary system.

.

If the market-based currency revolution is here to stay, what will
the world it brings about look like? Though it is a difficult question
to answer, one conclusion is clear: The future of the U.S. dollar, long
the world's dominant currency, is far from assured.

BELOW ARE THE LINKS TO THE OTHER 4 PARTS OF THE ABOVE STUDY, ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING I HAVE READ IN A LONG TIME...

IN THE BOOK 'CURRENCY WARS:THE MAKING OF THE NEXT GLOBAL CRISIS', JAMES RICKARDS WARNS..."Greater than any single threat is the very real danger of
the collapse of the dollar itself."

In 1971, President
Nixon imposed national price controls and took the United States off the
gold standard, an extreme measure intended to end an ongoing currency
war that had destroyed faith in the U.S. dollar.

Today we are engaged in
a new currency war, and this time the consequences will be far worse
than those that confronted Nixon.Currency wars are one of the most
destructive and feared outcomes in international economics. At best,
they offer the sorry spectacle of countries' stealing growth from their
trading partners. At worst, they degenerate into sequential bouts of
inflation, recession, retaliation, and sometimes actual violence.

Left
unchecked, the next currency war could lead to a crisis worse than the
panic of 2008.Currency wars have happened before-twice in the
last century alone-and they always end badly. Time and again, paper
currencies have collapsed, assets have been frozen, gold has been
confiscated, and capital controls have been imposed. And the next crash
is overdue.

Recent headlines about the debasement of the dollar,
bailouts in Greece and Ireland, and Chinese currency manipulation are
all indicators of the growing conflict.

As James Rickards argues in Currency Wars,
this is more than just a concern for economists and investors. The
United States is facing serious threats to its national security, from
clandestine gold purchases by China to the hidden agendas of sovereign
wealth funds. Greater than any single threat is the very real danger of
the collapse of the dollar itself.Baffling to many
observers is the rank failure of economists to foresee or prevent the
economic catastrophes of recent years. Not only have their theories
failed to prevent calamity, they are making the currency wars worse.

The
U. S. Federal Reserve has engaged in the greatest gamble in the history
of finance, a sustained effort to stimulate the economy by printing
money on a trillion-dollar scale. Its solutions present hidden new
dangers while resolving none of the current dilemmas."

AT THE "NEAR HYSTERIA" END OF THE SCALE, DOOM AND DIRE WARNINGS..."Gerald Celente has issued a warning that the Brexit campaign was something of a launching point for what is going to become a total collapse scenario.Markets have rattled with major
currency swings surrounding the Pound Sterling, and everyone is in for a
devastating sequence of events. The future of the EU, and its tenuous
relationship with Britain is unclear, and the financial reaction is
significant.

Immigration pressure is creating social
chaos, and the population is becoming fed up with the establishment and
their abuse of power. Europe faces an even larger threat of further
concentrated and more heavy-handed government power, through a more
desperate EU regime.

If populism spreads along with anti-EU
sentiment, there could a return to national currencies, and the
destruction of the Euro itself. Under such conditions, gold might be
expect to gain in value, and a global currency may attempt to emerge. As
Celente says, “The war has begun.”Exactly how it plays out remains to be seen.JUNE 29, 2016 Gerald Celente: " Although stocks bounced back on 'Turnaround Tuesday' on the belief that
contagion has been contained following the rout that wiped out $3.6
trillion from equity markets following Great Britain’s referendum last
Thursday to 'Brexit' the European Union… we disagree. It’s bigger than
Brexit…

Since
then, gold hit two-year highs, the British pound fell to 31-year lows
and currencies around the world hit new lows against the US dollar.With
employment numbers weakening, GDP tepid, manufacturing slumping,
durable-goods orders falling and productivity growth declining… several
days before the Brexit vote, Fed Chair Janet Yellen, in defense of not
raising interest rates, declared, “Recent economic indicators have been
mixed, suggesting that our cautious approach to adjusting monetary
policy remains appropriate.”

CONTINUING IN THE VEIN OF NEAR HYSTERIA:JUNE 11, 2016 Coming Currency Wars Will Make 1930s Look Like Picnic – John MauldinOn June 8, the London Stock Exchange issued the first Chinese
offshore sovereign bond, setting the table for the internationalization
of the Renminbi currency. This move had been months in the making when
the City of London had signed an agreement to participate in Yuan denominated Chinese bonds being sold in their global markets.This move also is another step in China’s ultimate plan to have the
Yuan currency be on par or greater than the dollar as a medium of trade,
especially following last year’s acceptance into the IMF’s SDR basket of reserve currencies.This is the worst two week drop in European banks since April 2012…Jim Rickards – Gold is Going to $10,000.00 ozCarl Icahn told CNBC on Thursday that bearish bets by fellow billionaire investor George Soros have merit because the stock market has been artificially boosted by prolonged low interest rates.

Some of the values in stocks, “you just have to wonder,” the chairman of Icahn Enterprises told “Squawk Box” in a wide-ranging interview.

Soros has returned to trading after a long hiatus, according to TheWall Street Journal, directing a series of big, bearish investments. The paper reports he sold stocks, and bought gold and shares of gold miners.

"The world is at risk of a currency
war after the Brexit vote, as each economy seeks to devalue their own
money in a bid to boost growth, Mario Draghi has warned.
The European Central Bank president urged colleagues across the globe
to coordinate their efforts, in order to avoid competitive currency
devaluations between economies, which could undermine attempts to boost
world growth.The ECB president said that competitive devaluations of this kind, often
known as currency wars, were a “lose-lose for the global economy, since
they only lead to greater market volatility, to which other central
banks are then forced to react”.

IN THE FINANCIAL JUNKYARD, EVERY NATION WANTS TO BE THE TOP "JUNKYARD DOG".

THE U.S. HAS BEEN SCRAMBLING FOR YEARS NOW TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE DOLLAR AS THE TOP CURRENCY WHILE PROBABLY A BIT MORE THAN HALF THE OTHER NATIONS OF THE WORLD LOOK FORWARD TO AMERICA BEING TOPPLED FROM TOP SPOT.

WE'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHICH NATION IS, INDEED, THE MEANEST, TOUGHEST "JUNKYARD DOG".

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

AFTER SPENDING MORE TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY ON TRYING TO HANG HILLARY CLINTON THAN IT SPENT OF INVESTIGATING THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK, THE JFK ASSASSINATION, WATERGATE OR THE 9/11 ATTACKS, CONGRESS ISSUED WHAT IT'S CALLING A "FINAL REPORT"....WHICH FINDS NO "NEW" WRONGDOING BY CLINTON OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT, BUT DOES BLAME THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND EVEN THE MILITARY FOR A FEW THINGS.

FROM CNN:"The dossier paints a picture of
bureaucratic ineptitude, a rapidly worsening security in Libya and
inadequate resources in the months that led up to the killing of Stevens
and his three colleagues.

The
report details numerous requests the embassy made to bolster the
security presence in Benghazi but finds that those requests were either
ignored or rejected by officials in Washington.

The report does not lay
the blame for these failures on Clinton but on lower-level officials.

It also highlights the military's
inability to react quickly to the events on the ground, noting that it
took over six hours for military assets to deploy after then-Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta had ordered a military response.

However,
it appears that the infamous "stand down" order was never given, though
some of the CIA security contractors who were the first to respond to
the attacks said that their station chief had told them to wait while
additional resources could be marshaled.

The report provides testimony that State Department officials knew that
the protests had been overly emphasized in administration messaging, but
the responsibility for the talking points was placed with the CIA.

The committee didn't drop any damaging new findings into the 2016 presidential election -- and that's good news for Clinton.

Republicans deny they launched the investigation
with a focus on Hillary Clinton, but Democrats accuse them of using
Benghazi as a political weapon, especially after this comment from
Republican leadership:“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" Rep. Kevin McCarthy asked on Fox News. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?”

If Democrats get their wishes, voters
will see House Republicans as having overstepped -- launching a two-year
investigation and spending more than $7 million, only to replicate the
findings of earlier investigations.

That
Jordan and Pompeo decided to release their own report to complement
Gowdy's suggests there was division within the GOP's ranks over just how
far to go in criticizing Clinton and Obama."

"Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly
partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select
Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding
no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the
2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead....The investigations generally concluded that after the attack, the Obama
administration’s talking points – a matter of much dispute – were flawed
but not deliberately misleading.[Nor did they find a single way Clinton could have saved any of the victims.]

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s
clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi,
and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans
were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a
roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items
focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any
deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and
“[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or
Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

[NOTE: THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT LEON PANETTA MADE THAT CALL, NOT CLINTON, WHO WAS NEVER IN THE "CHAIN OF COMMAND" THAT MADE THOSE DECISIONS, THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WHICH, AS THE MILITARY WITNESSES LIKE CARTER HAM AND THE OTHERS REITERATED FOR THE BRAIN-DEAD CONGRESSMEN, STARTS WITH THE PRESIDENT, GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THEN THE PENTAGON, AND FROM THERE TO THE "BOOTS-ON-THE-GROUND".

HAM SAID IT WAS HIS CALL TO PREVENT THE TEAM FROM TRIPOLI FROM GOING TO BENGHAZI.WHERE IS THAT IN THIS "FINAL REPORT"?MISSING IN ACTION!

THE "SUMMARY" FROM CONGRESS ALSO FAILS TO MENTION THAT ALL 5 SURVIVING MEMBERS OF THE CIA-PAID SECURITY TEAM THAT FLEW FROM TRIPOLI CLEARLY STATED THAT IT WAS THE CIA STATION CHIEF WHO ISSUED STAND-DOWN ORDERS WHICH THEY EVENTUALLY DISREGARDED.WHY LEAVE ALL THAT OUT?BECAUSE THAT WOULD SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT A WASTE THIS CRAP-SHOOT HAS BEEN.

IT MIGHT ENDANGER THEIR OWN REELECTIONS IF AMERICANS KNEW JUST HOW LUDICROUS ALL THE ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN THAT HILLARY CLINTON WAS TO BLAME FOR BENGHAZI.IT MIGHT HURT THE GOP CHANCES OF INSTALLING "TRUMP, THE CLOWN" INTO THE OVAL OFFICE INSTEAD OF "CLINTON, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR".

THAT SAD EVENT IN BENGHAZI WAS THE RESULT OF MULTIPLE FAILURES BY EVERY STEP IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO SECURITY FAILURES IN BENGHAZI AND NOT QUESTIONING WHY THE CIA FOUGHT BOTH STEVENS' AND OTHERS' EFFORTS TO REPLACE LOCAL LIBYAN SECURITY WITH MILITARY SECURITY UP TO THE TIME STEVENS TURNED DOWN CARTER HAM'S TWO OFFERS DAYS BEFORE THAT ATTACK TO SEND IN U.S. MILITARY SECURITY.

HAM STATED HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY STEVENS REFUSED THOSE OFFERS WHEN HE HAD REQUESTED EXTRA MILITARY SECURITY BEFORE.

IS CONGRESS "INVESTIGATING" THAT?HELL NO!]

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically
would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend
because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries.
[pg. 107]

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane
in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their
uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA
Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the
militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with
during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi
loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan
revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the
military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong
opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of
attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my
hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a
tragedy like this never happens again.”

The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife
with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early
stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article
cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually
from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a
full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had
occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]

A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13
intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi
Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it
turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists
Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from
Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the
administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi
attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador
Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but
cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the
committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi.
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple
times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi
attacks. [pg. 129]

Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State
Department, Intelligence Community and Congress aimed at strengthening
security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything
possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if
it does, that we are better prepared to respond, the majority make a
series of recommendations.

[SURELY DO WISH THE GOP MEMBERS, ALL MEMBERS, HAD DECIDED TO "STRENGTHEN SECURITY" AFTER THE HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN DEATHS AT EMBASSIES AND OVERSEAS COMPOUNDS DURING THE REAGAN AND THE TWO BUSHES' ADMINISTRATIONS!WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T INVESTIGATE THEN?]The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to
discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of
the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner
consistent with the rules of the House."UNDER "WITNESS INTERVIEW SUMMARIES", APPENDIX I:

Morell, Michael

—September 28, 2015:

Joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1980 andwas its Deputy Director from May 2010 to August 2013.

At the time of the attacks, the CIA had personnel in Benghazi and

Tripoli.The CIA’s Annex facility in Benghazi was attacked on September 11-

Republicans did not
furiously investigate any of those attacks, although U.S. citizens were
killed during attacks on the embassies in Karachi, Pakistan and Sana’a,
Yemen.

But when four Americans were killed in the attack on Benghazi, Libya,
Republicans in Congress insisted on establishing a Select Commission on
Benghazi, supposedly to investigate the circumstances surrounding the
attack.

While the 9-11 commission was able to interview more than 1,200
people in nearly the same amount of time that Republicans have been
investigating Benghazi, as of June of this year, the Select Commission
on Benghazi had interviewed just 29 people.

The overwhelming majority of them were people who had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi.

There’s little doubt in anyone’s mind that the Benghazi investigation
is politically motivated. The only reason it is taking such an obscene
amount of time for Republicans to wrap up this charade is that they
haven’t been able to find anything to use against former Secretary of
State, and possible future president, Hillary Clinton.

Republican Kevin McCarthy flat-out told the American public that Benghazi is nothing but a failed attempt to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.Right after that, a second Republican congressman, Richard Hanna, confirmed it.And then the CIA called out the chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, Republican Trey Gowdy, in a long letter, publicly exposing the committee’s shameless bullshit.As of June, Republicans had spent more than $3,500,000 of taxpayer money
trying to damage Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the White House.

They have wasted hundreds and hundreds of hours of congressional time,
which the American public is paying for. We’re not just talking about
their time, or that of their staffers, who are paid an average
of $128,750 a year. It’s also not just time of the 29 witnesses they’ve
called, many whom were also on the taxpayer clock when testifying.They’ve wasted the time of other people who are also on the public
clock, the CIA, the State Department and a list of people in the Obama
administration, including the Joint Chief of Staff and Press Secretary
Jay Carney.As the Observer reported in June, 2014:

In March 2014, the Defense Department informed Democratic
Rep. Adam Smith, they had spent “millions of dollars” and “thousands of
man-hours to respond to numerous and often repetitive Congressional
requests regarding Benghazi.”

The State Department now has 12 full-time staff members,
whom are paid between $63,700 and $150,000, entirely dedicated to the
job of reviewing Hillary Clinton’s emails. According to the National
Journal, the dozen “Hillary Clinton e-mail readers” alone “could cost
more than $1 million.” The full cost of just the document queries will
likely run well over eight figures.The idea that President Obama would have all the information to
accurately describe what was unfolding in Benghazi as it happened was
preposterous.

As someone once wryly remarked, George W. Bush spent years
telling the American public that Iraq was responsible for 9/11,
President Obama spent a few hours saying “we don’t know” what happened
in Benghazi. Hardly an impeachable offense.[NOTE: THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE! IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS TO KNOW, TO MAKE SURE INFORMATION IS VALID, TO LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED WHEN IT COMES TO SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN LIVES!THE PRESIDENT IS AT THE TOP OF THAT 'CHAIN OF COMMAND'.HE MUST BE CERTAIN OF THE INFORMATION HE RECEIVES, AT WHATEVER EXPENSE NEEDS TO BE PAID TO ASCERTAIN CREDIBLE INFORMATION.]

Enough is enough. There are at least 18 members of Congress who need to
be impeached, if not imprisoned, for their actions while serving on the
Select Committee On Benghazi."

WRONG!EVEN LEAVING BENGHAZI OUT OF THE MIX, EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT AND THE OCCUPANT OF THE OVAL OFFICE, NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED AND TRIED FOR TREASON FOR NOT KEEPING THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE.

NOT ONE OF THOSE HAVE DONE AS THEY SWORE TO DO.

OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM IS A BAD JOKE, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE ALL ON THE TAKE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE APPOINTED JUDGES ARE JUST AS GUILTY AS ANY THEY EVER FOUND GUILTY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE FAILED TO EXECUTE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HAVE CHANGED AND "INTERPRETED" THE CONSTITUTION TO DEATH, AND HAVE OVERSTEPPED THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED AUTHORITY FOR DECADES NOW.

THAT CONGRESS USED THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS AS A POLITICAL TOOL TO TRY TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION PROCESS, USED IT TO TRY TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION FOR THE UPCOMING "ELECTION" IS HIGH TREASON, IS A CRIMINAL ACT, AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED.

THE CIA, INDEPENDENTLY AND NOT ANSWERING TO ANY POLITICAL POWER UNLESS IT CHOOSES TO, SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF THIS "INVESTIGATION".

THE CIA IS, IN THE OPINION OF MANY, THE MAIN REASON FOR THE DEATHS OF THOSE FOUR AMERICANS.THE CIA CALLED THE SHOTS, ISSUED "SECURITY REPORTS" THAT WE NOW KNOW WERE SEVERELY "EDITED" AND PREVENTED THEIR OWN HIRED FORCES FROM RESCUING STEVENS WHEN THEY FIRST ARRIVED FROM TRIPOLI.

WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHY!

CONGRESSMEN, LIKELY AFRAID OF THE "DIRT" THE CIA HAS ON FILE FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM, WILL NEVER RISK ANGERING THE CIA AND SO WILL NEVER DISCOVER WHETHER OR NOT STEVENS WAS "FRAGGED", OR WHY THE CIA OVERSTEPPED ITS BOUNDS AND WAS INTERROGATING LIBYAN PRISONERS INSIDE A U.S. EMBASSY COMPLEX, OR IF THAT VERY THING IS WHAT CAUSED THE ATTACK ON THAT SHILL EMBASSY WHERE WE NOW KNOW FROM WHICH GUN DEALS WERE BEING MADE WITH SYRIANS AS WELL.

THE U.S. CONGRESS JUST PLACED A HIGHER VALUE ON PARTY POLITICS THAN AMERICAN LIVES.

IF THAT DOESN'T ANGER YOU TO ACTION, IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU SCREAM FOR JUSTICE AND FIRE ALL INVOLVED IN THIS FIASCO, I HAVE TO WONDER WHY YOU CALL YOURSELF AN AMERICAN.

IT'S PAST TIME WE ALL REALIZE WE ARE AMERICANS FIRST AND FOREMOST AND THAT THIS NATION AND THE LIVES OF ALL HER PEOPLE MEAN A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN WHO WINS ELECTIONS, OR WHICH PARTY IS IN POWER.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

ABOVE, simulation of the 2008 'Great Southern California ShakeOut' was based on a potential
magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault—
approximately 5,000 times larger than the magnitude 5.4 earthquake that
shook southern California on July 29, 2008.

It's not a matter of if an
earthquake of this size will happen—but when.

Above, another animation of wave propagation during a magnitude-7.8 earthquake
rupturing the San Andreas Fault from northeast to southwest.

Simulation by Daniel Roten, Kim
Olsen, and Steven Day at the Department of Geological Sciences at San
Diego State University, and Yifeng Cui at the San Diego Supercomputer
Center. Visualization by Daniel Roten (SDSU). Simulation on UIUC Blue
Waters.PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE INITIAL SHOCK MAY BE FOLLOWED BY MORE INTENSE SHAKING.

WE'VE BEEN WARNED FOR YEARS THAT THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT AREA IS LONG OVERDUE FOR A MAJOR QUAKE.

Using information from recent earthquakes, improved mapping of active faults, and a new model for estimating earthquake probabilities, the 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities updated the 30-year earthquake forecast for California.

They concluded that there is a 72 percent probability (or likelihood) of at least one earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater striking somewhere in the San Francisco Bay region before 2043.

Earthquakes this large are capable of causing widespread damage; therefore, communities in the region should take simple steps to help reduce injuries, damage, and disruption, as well as accelerate recovery from these earthquakes."

Above, the San Andreas is visible from the air.

The
San Andreas fault system is more that 1300 km (800 miles) long, and in
some spots is as much as 16 km (10 miles) deep.

The San Andreas fault is NOT a single, continuous fault,
but rather is actually a fault zone made up of many segments. Movement may
occur along any of the many fault segments along the zone at any time.

By contrast, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, and a large portion of San Bernardino County, are rising at the same rate.

The California coastline is where two enormous tectonic plates come together. The Pacific plate and the North American plate are slowly but surely moving against one another, and this creates a tremendous amount of geological stress.

While areas on both sides of the San Andreas fault have been steadily rising and sinking as a result of this stress, there are sections of the fault itself that have remained "locked" for more than 100 years, and other sections that have remained locked for more than 300 years..."

OVERDUE...

The region of the San Andreas fault between Monterey County and Imperial County hasn't moved in a significant way in more than 150 years, and other parts of the fault have been accumulating stress for more than 300 years with no major quake there since 1690.

The earliest reported earthquake in California was felt in 1769 by the exploring expedition of Gaspar de Portola while the group was camping about 48 kilometers (30 miles) southeast of Los Angeles.

The last 'megaquake' on the southern San Andreas fault, magnitude 7.9, was in the Monterey Region, Los Angeles County in 1857. The quake was so powerful that the soil liquefied, causing trees as far
away as Stockton to sink. Trees were also uprooted west of Fort Tejon.
The shaking lasted 1 to 3 minutes.

IN THE PAST 7 DAYS, AS OF TODAY, JUNE 25, 2016, ACCORDING TO THE USGS, THERE HAVE BEEN 1,814 EARTHQUAKES THAT WERE RECORDED GLOBALLY, ALL MAGNITUDES.

1,044 OF THOSE WERE RECORDED IN THE USA AND ALMOST 800 OF THOSE WERE IN THE CALIFORNIA/NEVADA/OREGON AREA. IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, THERE HAVE BEEN 109 QUAKES WITH A GREATER THAN 4.5 MAGNITUDE WORLDWIDE.16 OF THOSE OCCURRED TODAY, JUNE 25.

YOU CAN VIEW TODAY'S WORLDWIDE QUAKES AND ACCESS EARTHQUAKE ARCHIVES AT USGS <HERE>.

Just last year the U.S. Geological Survey admitted that the probability
of a megaquake along the west coast involving multiple faults at once
was significantly greater than they had previously been projecting..."The new likelihoods are due to the inclusion of possible multi-fault
ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate,
individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults
simultaneously," lead author of the study and USGS scientist, Ned Field
says. "This is a significant advancement in terms of representing a
broader range of earthquakes throughout California's complex fault
system.".MAY 4, 2016, FROM THE L.A. TIMES:

"The springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight.
And the southern San Andreas fault, in particular, looks like it’s
locked, loaded and ready to go,” Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center told the participants in his keynote address at the National Earthquake Conference in Long Beach.Jordan said it’s important that California focus on becoming
resilient to a potential huge earthquake, one as strong as a magnitude
8. He praised Los Angeles’ plan to require earthquake retrofits on apartment and concrete buildings, pushed into law by Mayor Eric Garcetti.

“It’s remarkable that this happened,” Jordan said. “We know politically how difficult it is to make these kinds of changes.”

Other areas of focus have included strengthening Los Angeles’ vulnerable aqueduct systems and its telecommunications networks.Among other predicted problems: The sewer system could be out of commission for six months.

Such an earthquake could cause shaking for nearly two minutes,
with the strongest shaking in the Coachella Valley, Inland Empire and
Antelope Valley, but it also could send pockets of strong shaking into
areas where sediments trap shaking waves, such as the San Gabriel Valley
and East Los Angeles."

CALIFORNIA, 10,000 QUAKES A YEAR....Each year the southern California area has about 10,000 earthquakes. Most of them are so small that they are not felt. Only several hundred are greater than magnitude 3.0, and only about 15-20 are greater than magnitude 4.0.

If there is a large earthquake, however, the aftershock sequence will produce many more earthquakes of all magnitudes for many months. I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THE FOLLOWING ON THE USGS SITE DISPUTING A RISE IN MAJOR EARTHQUAKES. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS WRITTEN, BUT IT'S NO LONGER TRUE AND SHOULD BE UPDATED. 2015 WAS A RECORD-BREAKER FOR MAGNITUDE 7.0 AND HIGHER QUAKES, ACCORDING TO ANOTHER USGS FACT SITE!

In
the past 38 years, from 1973 through 2011, our records show that we have
exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes only 8
times, in 1976, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2007, 2009 (21), 2010 (30), and 2011 (26).

[NOTE: NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES ARE THE COUNT FROM BERKELEY, NOT USGS.]

The year with the largest total was 2010, with 24 earthquakes greater than or equal to (symbolized by ≥) magnitude 7.0".

SO FAR IN 2016?10 ≥ 7.0 MAGNITUDE.WHEN WE LOOK AT THE EXPECTED FREQUENCY OF VARIOUS MAGNITUDES OF EARTHQUAKES USING THE RICHTER SCALE BELOW, WE CAN SEE THAT THE USGS MAY BE 'PULLING OUR LEG' JUST A BIT ON HOW MANY EARTHQUAKES OVER 6.0 WE SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN A YEAR OR A MONTH...

WE'RE SEEING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN PERHAPS WE SHOULD EXPECT.

THE ENERGY RELEASED BY EARTHQUAKES CAN BE MASSIVE.FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE RICHTER SCALE, A 6.0 QUAKE RELEASES ABOUT 15 KILOTONS OF ENERGY, THE EQUIVALENT OF THE ATOMIC BOMB DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA. A 7.9 IS EQUIVALENT TO THE TUNGUNSKA EVENT'S 10.7 MEGATONS THAT LEVELED TREES FOR MILES.

HERE'S A LITTLE KNOWN FACT ABOUT USGS, ACCORDING TO OTHER WEBSITES AND NATIONS THAT MEASURE EARTHQUAKES: USGS OFTEN DOWNGRADES QUAKES, EVEN THOUGH THE REPORTING SEISMIC AGENCY IN THE NATION OR STATE OF THE QUAKE DISAGREES.MAYBE THEY USE DIFFERENT FORMULAE?

USGS DIDN'T MAP OR SHOW RECORD OF MANY OF THE QUAKES REPORTED AT THE OTHER 3 SITES, FOR EXAMPLE IN AUSTRALIA, NEAR AUSTRALIA AND IN SOUTH AMERICA. HOWEVER, THE OTHER 3 SITES ALSO EXCLUDE SOME QUAKES LISTED BY USGS.

WHOM DO WE TRUST FOR FACTUAL DATA?

CASCADIA RISING FEMA DRILLDrill dates: June 7-10, 2016The Cascadia Subduction Zone off the coast of North America
spans from northern California to southern British Columbia. This
subduction zone can produce earthquakes as large as magnitude 9 and
corresponding tsunamis.

Scientific evidence indicates that a magnitude
8.0-9.0 earthquake occurs along the 800-mile long fault on average once
every 200 to 500 years.

The last major earthquake and tsunami along the
fault occurred over 300 years ago in 1700.

“A 9.0 magnitude earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) and
the resulting tsunami is the most complex disaster scenario that
emergency management and public safety officials in the Pacific
Northwest could face. Cascadia Rising is an exercise to address that
disaster.

To prepare the Pacific Northwest for such an enormous disaster, the U.S. government has developed, alongside the military and state and local emergency personnel, a readiness drill the second week of June, a dress rehearsal for the prophesied massive earthquake and tsunami.

Cascadia Rising, named after the 600-mile-long fault, the Cascadian Subduction Zone, which runs from Northern California to Southern British Columbia, was a drill that involved 20,000 people, utilizing a wide range of governmental agencies, with the goal to test how well these agencies will work to decrease the loss of life and the destruction such an earthquake would leave.

Scientists tell us that we are actually way overdue for such a quake and accompanying tsunami, and when it comes large numbers of Americans that are clustered right along the coastline will die.

Why all of this is of greater concern now is due to the fact that many areas along the “Ring of Fire” that roughly encircles the Pacific Ocean are roaring to life right now.

The FEMA drill included measures to be taken by coastal residents in the event of a tsunami following a major quake. "

"The major earthquakes that devastated Chile earlier this year (2010) and the one which
triggered the catastrophic Indonesian tsunami of 2004 are more than just
a distinct possibility to strike the Pacific Northwest coast of the
United States. New analyses by Oregon State University marine geologist Chris
Goldfinger and his colleagues have provided fresh insights into the
Northwest’s turbulent seismic history – where magnitude 8.2 (or higher)
earthquakes have occurred 41 times during the past 10,000 years.

Those
earthquakes were thought to generally occur every 500 years, but as
scientists delve more deeply into the offshore sediments and other
evidence, they have discovered a great deal more complexity to the
Cascadia Subduction Zone.

“What we’ve found is that Cascadia isn’t one big subduction zone when
it comes to major earthquakes,” Goldfinger said. “It actually has
several segments – at least four – and the earthquake activity is
different depending on where a quake originates. The largest earthquakes
occur in the north and usually rupture the entire fault. These are
quakes of about magnitude-9 and they are just huge – but they don’t
happen as frequently.“At the southern end of the fault, the earthquakes tend to be a bit
smaller, but more frequent,” he added. “These are still magnitude-8 or
greater events, which is similar to what took place in Chile, so the
potential for damage is quite real.”

The OSU professor is convinced that the Pacific Northwest is at risk
for an earthquake that could meet – or exceed – the power of seismic
events that took place in Chile, as well as Haiti.

If a magnitude-9
earthquake does strike Cascadia, he says, the ground could shake for
several minutes.

Highways could be torn to pieces, bridges may collapse,
and buildings would be damaged or even crumble.

If the epicenter is
just offshore, coastal residents could have as little as 15 minutes of
warning before a tsunami could strike.That immediacy is why engineering and coastal communities are
exploring different ways of evacuating low-lying areas, including the
construction of high-rise, tsunami-resistant facilities.

“It is not a question of if a major earthquake will strike,”
Goldfinger said, “it is a matter of when. And the ‘when’ is looking like
it may not be that far in the future.”

Significant Earthquakes, Past 30 Days:[
NOTE: Most earthquakes occur at depths of less than 80 km (50 miles)
from the Earth’s surface. The deepest earthquakes typically occur at
plate boundaries where the Earth”s crust is being subducted into the
Earth’s mantle. These occur as deep as 750 km (400 miles) below the
surface. The hypocenter of an earthquake is the location beneath the
earth’s surface where the rupture of the fault begins. The epicenter of
an earthquake is the location directly above the hypocenter on the
surface of the earth.]

Earthquakes
occurring outside the US and smaller than about magnitude 4.5 can be
difficult for the USGS to locate if there are not enough data.

The
USGS continues to receive data from observatories throughout the world
for several months after the events occur. Using those data, we add new
events and revise existing events in later publications.

For a description of these later publications and the data available, see Scientific Data.

NOTE: There are many regional networks around the world that can record smaller
earthquakes in their region than the NEIC global network can, and in many
cases these regional networks do not share their data with the NEIC. So if
you think there is a missing earthquake on our maps and lists, please see the
national and regional links for the area of interest on these webpages:

The
eruption was predicted in 2014 and is currently the most accurate
eruption forecast of this volcano made so far. Previously documented eruptions from the volcano occurred in 1998 and 2011. Two large lava flows from the N rift zone, 8 - 16 km (5 - 10
miles) north of the summit caldera, were at most 127 m (417 feet) thick.
Some of the thicker areas had drained collapse features indicating they
had molten interiors when emplaced. The ROV traversed the flows for
about 2 km (1.2 miles). New, thinner lava flows were also identified in
the NE summit caldera and on the NE rim.

The volcano rises 700 m (0.4 miles) above the mean level of the central
Juan de Fuca Ridge crest to within about 1 400 m (0.8 miles) of the sea
surface. It is the most magmatically robust and seismically active site
on the Juan de Fuca Ridge between the Blanco Fracture Zone and the Cobb
offset. "

Santiaguito (Guatemala): Following a relatively calm period of 3 weeks (no significant eruptions since 25 May), a powerful vulcanian explosion occurred at the Caliente lava dome again on June 17 at 09:15 local time, sending a mushroom-shaped eruption column approx. 5 km into the sky.

Above: map of currently erupting volcanoes across the globe, as of June 25, 2016.Below, a partial list of currently active/erupting volcanoes:

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DO NOT LIVE ON A DEAD PLANET.SHE IS VERY MUCH ALIVE!HER TECTONIC PLATES MOVE CONSTANTLY.

WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS HOW MUCH THOSE PLATES WILL MOVE OR EXACTLY WHEN THEIR MOVEMENTS WILL CAUSE EARTHQUAKES, OR EARTHQUAKES WITH TSUNAMIS.

THE WISE PREPARE FOR "WORST CASE SCENARIOS". IT'S JUST LOGICAL AND SENSIBLE TO ALWAYS BE PREPARED. WE MUST ALSO LOOK AGAIN AT JAPAN AND THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER AND THEN LOOK AT DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND THE "DECOMMISSIONED" BUT LEAKING STILL SAN ONOFRE ON AMERICA'S WEST COAST, JUST AS OLD AND JUST AS VULNERABLE AND WITH THE SAME EXACT DESIGN FLAWS THAT THE REACTORS AT JAPAN'S DAI'ICHI FACILITY HAD, AND SITTING ON THAT SAME PACIFIC OCEAN.